Like most here, I did not want Romney as the nominee for a variety of reasons and our concerns in goodly measure have been ratified. Romney has not run a very good campaign. Like most/all here I strongly prefer Romney to Obama. Like most/all here I think much of our media to be a cabal of progressive pravda conspiracy on behalf of Baraq-- and would submit that this line of thought has exceedingly ample evidence provided in this thread.

CNN defends 'superb' debate moderator Candy Crowley over her 'point of fact' on Benghazi . . . and claims she only gave Obama more time because he speaks slowlyBy Toby Harnden In WashingtonPUBLISHED: 22:06 EST, 17 October 2012 | UPDATED: 14:56 EST, 18 October 2012

CNN has sent out talking points to its staff, directing them to say that Candy Crowley was merely 'stating a point of fact' about the Libya 'terror' row and insisting that Barack Obama only got more time than Mitt Romney because he speaks slowly.In an email to all CNN staff, the network's managing editor Mark Whitaker congratulated his anchoron her role as moderator and washing over the controversy over her effectively siding with Obama over Romney on a question concerning the U.S. Consulate attack in Libya last month. Whitaker wrote: 'Let's start with a big round of applause for Candy Crowley for a superb job under the most difficult circumstances imaginable.' Show of support: Moderator Candy Crowley had the backing of CNN despite what her critics saidAccording to the internal email, obtained by TMZ, Whitaker continued: 'The reviews on Candy's performance have been overwhelmingly positive but Romney supporters are going after her on two points, no doubt because their man did not have as good a night as he had in Denver.'The moderator's dramatic intervention, in which she cut Romney short when he claimed that Obama had failed to say the attack was the work of terrorists in the his Rose Garden statement the following day, has been met with outrage. More...Revealed: The high-flying women in Romney's 'binder'... but was he telling the truth about his cabinet selection process? 'I'm still getting the hang of this thing': Obama says he's starting to 'figure out' presidential debates Caught on camera: The moment Michelle Obama broke debate rules by CLAPPING as Candy Crowley backed her husband over Romney's Libya claim

Crowley appeared to backtrack just a few hours after she left the GOP candidate exposed on the stage in front of millions of viewers.

She admitted that Romney had been 'right in the main' but added that he had 'picked the wrong word'.She then told chat show The View today: 'It didn't come to me as I'm going to fact check that. It came to me as let's get past this... To me I was really trying to move the conversation along... This is a semantic thing.'

Coming out fighting: The President, pictured with Romney at the start of the debate, was much more aggressiveA storm of protest has followed the incident. Top Romney allies said Crowley 'had no business' intervening in the argument, accusing her of 'getting in the game' rather than being an impartial observer.IN FULL: THE CNN EMAILLet's start with a big round of applause for Candy Crowley for a superb job under the most difficult circumstances imaginable. She and her team had to select and sequence questions in a matter of hours, and then she had to deal with the tricky format, the nervous questioners, the aggressive debaters, all while shutting out the pre-debate attempts to spin and intimidate her. She pulled it off masterfully.The reviews on Candy's performance have been overwhelmingly positive but Romney supporters are going after her on two points, no doubt because their man did not have as good a night as he had in Denver.

On the legitimacy of Candy fact-checking Romney on Obama's Rose Garden statement, it should be stressed that she was just stating a point of fact: Obama did talk about an act (or acts) of terror, no matter what you think he meant by that at the time.On why Obama got more time to speak, it should be noted that Candy and her commission producers tried to keep it even but that Obama went on longer largely because he speaks more slowly. We're going to do a word count to see whether, as in Denver, Romney actually got more words in even if he talked for a shorter period of time.During a question about security at the Benghazi compound, where four American officials including ambassador Chris Stevens were killed on September 11, Obama said he was ultimately responsible as commander-in-chief.Romney then questioned whether or not Obama had called the consulate attack an 'act of terror' in his Rose Garden address the following day.While Obama cut across Romney - saying 'look at the transcript' - Crowley seemed to back up the President, telling the Republican governor that Obama did 'call it an act of terror'.Her interjection drew applause from the audience, led by Mrs Obama, but angered political commentators, who accused Crowley of stepping in on behalf of the President.

Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro called the moderator's reactions a 'disgrace' while his colleague John Nolte said Crowley 'lied to save Obama'.Democratic strategist Joe Trippi told Fox News the exchange was 'going to help the President', adding: 'There’s a ref, and the ref just threw the flag.'Romney advisor Ron Kaufman continued the sporting metaphor as he said: 'At different times tonight, she in fact got into the game, and she wasn't on the sidelines.'And former New Hampshire governor John Sununu said: 'Candy was wrong, and Candy had no business doing that, and Candy didn't even keep the time right.'However, top Romney aide Eric Fehrnstrom insisted he was relaxed about the controversial intervention, saying: 'I don't complain about the refs - I think Candy was dandy.'The shock moment came in the middle of what CBS News anchor Scott Pelley described as 'the most rancorous presidential debate ever', adding: 'We have never seen anything like that in presidential history. They turned every question from the audience into an attack on the other.'Crowley often struggled to control the candidates as they spoke over each other amid angry exchanges.

"...[Romney] doesn't [connect with voters], and you blame someone else"

My view is different than Crafty's in this sense, I am mostly satisfied with the Romney campaign and especially his debate performances including the second. I thought Romney looked very well prepared for every question asked and gave clear and persuasive answers to each, under difficult circumstances. There is always more he could have said, time permitting - but time didn't. I thought President Obama was way out of line in terms of false and deceptive charges and denials, a follow up for another thread. I blame the moderator for failure in her assigned and agreed role.

"You are wrong on many things, Doug." - I like to hear this.) I regularly hope I am wrong but end up disappointed.

The Michelle Obama applause accusation seems to be true. http://www.examiner.com/article/michelle-obama-violated-debate-prohibition-against-applauding The audio has a lead partisan clapping loudly and a camera still shot indicates it was the First Lady - unless she brought her hands together to pray.

NY Daily News

The real point though IMO was that the applause was one-sided and the so-called moderator did nothing about it. It just compounded what was happening at the 'moderator' table.

Professional umpires assigning different strike zones to different hitters and pitchers... I know it happens. Is it professional?

"[binders of women's resumes] would have been given to the winner of the election, no matter [who] it was."

If the story is a lie or embellishment, please link; plenty of staffers should know.

The main point was the hiring, not the binders IMO. He was ranked number one in the nation at putting women in top positions. A Democratic Governor would have hired the same staff as a Republican Governor or hire just as many women? We don't know that.

I did not say that you were wrong about the applause. I asked for a source, before indicating you were error about specific other things, but in your response you imply I thought you were error. Professional? Misleading? Wrong?

We can talk about the professionalism of MLB umpires if you really want to. I was responding to your claim that "A professional hockey ref calls offside on Wayne Gretszky the same as he calls it on a first year unknown." And now you backtrack???!!!??? Or, do you not believe it? Or do you think, perhaps, that humans miss actions in games of high speed, perhaps?

Prior to the 2002 gubernatorial election, MassGAP approached the campaigns of candidates Shannon O’Brien and Mitt Romney and asked them both to commit to: (1).“Make best efforts” to ensure that the number of women in appointed state positions is proportionate to the population of women in Massachusetts; (2). Select a transition team whose composition is proportionate to the women in the Commonwealth; and (3). Meet with MassGAP representatives regularly during the appointments process. Both campaigns made a commitment to this process. ...Prior to the 2002 election, women comprised approximately 30 percent of appointed senior-level positions in Massachusetts government. By 2004, 42 percent of the new appointments made by the Romney administration were women. Subsequently, however, from 2004-2006 the percentage of newly-appointed women in these senior appointed positions dropped to 25 percent.

'That will be the clip that will be seen around the world, Mitt Romney. And the interesting thing about that is, he told the story about the women in his Cabinet, was that was affirmative action. That is affirmative action.

He got all these men. And he said, no, no, can’t we find some women? Go out and find some women. That’s the definition of affirmative action.'"

New York Times Still Claiming 'Riots in Libya' Caused by Youtube VidBy ROBERT LAURIE - NYT obviously still deep in denialYesterday, the New York Times ran a story about a new movie, scheduled to air on the National Geographic channel two days before the election, which focuses on the death of Bin Laden. The film chronicles Obama's brave decision to make the only choice he could, and authorize the killing despite the wishes of Vice President Joe Biden.It's called "SEAL Team Six: The Raid on Osama bin Laden." The film's rights are held by Harvey Weinstein, one of Obama's most ardent supporters, and it features the President prominently.Most of the article is spent discussing how airing the film so close to the election is just a coincidence. The producers want to assure you that this is not propaganda, the subject is handled fairly, and there's no political motivation behind the timing. According to NatGeo chief exec Howard T. Owens, the date was simply selected “to take advantage of our fall schedule. Other than being commercially opportunistic, we weren’t considering the election,”Of course they weren't.More interesting is that the NYT piece carries an indication that the paper is not finished burying its head in the sand over the Benghazi situation. Buried near the bottom of the column is the following paragraph."Beyond the political issues, the film may carry the risk of associating Mr. Obama with any backlash in a Muslim world already inflamed by the YouTube trailer for an insulting film portrayal of its prophet. In September riots erupted in Libya, Egypt and elsewhere as Muslim crowds reacted violently to what they perceived as the unforgivable insults of a scratch production, “The Innocence of Muslims,” some of which was posted on YouTube.

Nothing in “SEAL Team Six” recalls the anti-Muslim tones of that film. But the new film’s portrayals of the jeopardy to Muslim children during the assault on Bin Laden’s compound, and its graphic references to — but not portrayals of — torture in the war on terror may step toward the risk zone."Oh no! portraying the Bin Laden raid "may step toward the risk zone!" Heaven forbid.Perhaps this is a good time to remind the crack reporters at The New York Times that we've since learned there was no riot in Libya, as the streets were completely calm that night. Also, we now know that the attack on our consulate was an act of planned terrorism which had nothing to do with any YouTube video.You'd think the "Old Grey Lady" would get tired of embarrassing herself. You'd be wrong. Thank goodness she's here to sound the alarm, warning those who would see us dead that a new movie may hurt their feelings.

an interview with CNN host Piers Morgan last week, Media mogul and CNN founder Ted Turner said the fact that there have been more suicides than combat deaths in the Army this year is not “shocking,” but “good.”

Highlighted first by Breitbart.com, the Oct. 19 interview has Turner speculating that “it’s time to put war and conflict behind us and move on,” and the rising rate of self-inflicted troop deaths is good because it brings attention to that view.

Here’s the exchange:

TURNER: It’s time to put war and conflict behind us and move on, and start acting like civilized, educated human beings.

MORGAN: You made the point to me in the break there, more American servicemen have –

TURNER: — are dying now from suicide over there than are dying in combat.

MORGAN: That’s shocking, isn’t it?

TURNER: Well, what — no, I think it’s — I think it’s good, because it’s so clear that we’re programmed and we’re born to love and help each other, not to kill each other, to destroy each other. That’s an aberration. That’s left over from hundreds of years ago. It’s time for to us start acting enlightened.

President Barack Obama has spoken out to condemn Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock’s controversial comments on abortion and rape in recent days. Will he let this remark go unaddressed?

It's hard to find a benchmark against which to compare remarks delivered by Vice President Joe Biden, but here's one from a past administration. In June 2004, Bush 43 Vice President Dick Cheney was greeted on the Senate Floor at the annual Senate photo op by Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy. Leahy had previously been flogging the left's phantasm over alleged "profiteering" by Halliburton, the company at which Cheney had served as Chairman and CEO from 1995-2000. At the end of a testy exchange, Cheney either said "(F-word) you" or "(F-word) yourself."

The Washington Post (go to the third of 22 pages at the link), the New York Times, and the Associated Press covered the story. A Taipei Times dispatch claiming to a blend of Times and AFP reporting actually contains the F-word. A Google News Archive search surfaces at least a dozen establishment press stories and commentaries which are still out there. However, I found almost no mainstream press stories covering what the father of slain Benghazi-defending hero Tyrone Woods claims that Biden said to him when the casket containing his son's remains returned to America (bold was in original):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓JOE BIDEN TO FATHER OF FORMER NAVY SEAL KILLED IN BENGHAZI: ‘DID YOUR SON ALWAYS HAVE BALLS THE SIZE OF CUE BALLS?’

The father of one of the former Navy SEALs killed in the terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya says President Barack Obama wouldn’t even look him in the eye and Vice President Joe Biden was disrespectful during the ceremony when his son’s body returned to America. He also says the White House’s story on the attack doesn’t pass the smell test.

Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods, called into “The Glenn Beck Program” on TheBlazeTV Thursday and recounted his interactions with the president, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Biden at the ceremony for the Libya victims at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. He told host Glenn Beck that what they told him, coupled with new reports that indicate the Obama administration knew very good and well, almost immediately, that a terrorist attack was occurring in Benghazi, make him certain that the American people are not getting the whole truth.

Vice President Biden, as he has become known to do, reportedly made a wildly inappropriate comment to the father who had just lost his hero son.

Woods said Biden came over to his family and asked in a “loud and boisterous” voice, “Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?”

If this claim were refutable, I believe the Vice President's office would have attempted to do so by now, and it hasn't. The "loud and boisterous" element just cited sort of closes off that avenue.

Later in the Blaze report just linked, Woods described his encounter with President Obama at the same ceremony:

“When he finally came over to where we were, I could tell that he was rather conflicted, a person who was not at peace with himself,” Woods said. “Shaking hands with him, quite frankly, was like shaking hands with a dead fish. His face was pointed towards me but he would not look me in the eye, his eyes were over my shoulder.”

“I could tell that he was not sorry,” he added. “He had no remorse.”

Beck said he wanted to give the president “the benefit of the doubt,” and asked Woods how he could be sure that Obama wasn’t just uncomfortable or nervous during their conversation. Woods said it was Obama’s “demeanor.”

Completing the trifecta of administration awkwardness and obfuscation, Woods claims that Hillary Clinton told him that the U.S. would "make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted."

Google News searches on "Charles Woods" (in quotes) and "Biden cue" (not in quotes) returned only two results from U.S. establishment press outlets, a blog post at US News and an outstanding column at the Orange Country Register by the incomparable Mark Steyn. The UK Daily Mail is on the story. Separate searches on "Charles Woods" at the Associated Press and the News York Times (not in quotes and in quotes, respectively) are similarly barren.

The mainstream media's silence on the Benghazi disaster reached deafening levels on Sunday, as hosts of four out of the five major news shows--with the exception of Fox News Sunday--failed to raise the issue. Only Bob Schieffer of CBS gave it serious consideration, and only after it was raised by Sen. John McCain.When the Benghazi issue did surface, other than on Fox, it was invariably brought up by Republican guests, and then deflected by the hosts, who largely ignored new stories this week that implicated the White House in the decision not to intervene to save the life of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and other American staff.

Here is how the Sunday shows covered the issue:

NBC: Meet the Press with David Gregory

The Benghazi issue was not raised at all, save by panelist Carly Fiorina, who was interrupted by Gregory. He promised, "We'll get to that a little bit later," but did not return to the issue before the show's end. (The show was interrupted in some markets, in the final minute, with breaking news about Hurricane Sandy.)

ABC: This Week with George Stephanopoulos

The Benghazi issue was raised by Newt Gingrich, in response to a question about the Romney campaign's prospects in Ohio. Stephanopoulos failed to ask a follow-up and steered the conversation back to polls.

CNN: State of the Union with Candy Crowley

The Benghazi issue was raised twice, once by Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus in response to a question about U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock's views on abortion, and once by Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell in response to a question about whether Romney would win the state in November. Crowley did not raise the issue independently in a show largely focused on polls and voting.

CBS: Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer

The Benghazi issue was raised in an exchange between Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, Obama's former chief of staff. After McCain brought up the issue, Schieffer asked a follow-up question about whether the administration had engaged in a "deliberate cover-up." McCain said it had either been a cover-up or "the worst kind of incompetence." Schieffer responded with another question about whether drones had produced images of the attacks. Emanuel responded with the Obama campaign's standard talking points, and Schieffer followed up with a question about what he would have done in the White House. Emanuel ducked the question, instead praising Obama's foreign policy record in general.

FOX: Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace

The Benghazi issue was first raised by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) in describing issues of concern to Wisconsin voters. Wallace replied that he had planned to address the issue later, which he did, addressing questions to Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) about recent revelations. Warner responded by expressing sympathy with the families of the dead and wounded and promised: "We're going to get to the bottom of this. The intelligence is going to hold hearings when we return, right after the election." He added that the situation had "been politicized," criticizing Romney in particular. Wallace countered that the issue was a legitimate topic of political discussion. He followed up with questions about whether drones flying over Benghazi were armed, and Sen. Udall repeatedly refused to answer directly, saying that he could not comment further. Wallace also later made the issue the primary focus of the show's subsequent panel discussion.

An earlier version of this article cited Sen. Tom Udall. The error has been fixed.

Candy Crowley (in)famously discussed Benghazi on October 16 and 17. Now she doesn't. Seems like a no win. Even on the day before a hurricane collides with a coast, and estimated tens of millions of people will be without power.

I understand your concern about Benghazi, as you know. I think this critique is off the mark. You might have heard about the hurricane moving toward the east coast. It IS newsworthy. And, it might very well impact the election.

Grumble, grumble, you do support what you say with relevant data but on the whole I still think my larger point remains.

=============================================

Whistleblower Sues Time, Inc. Over "Fast and Furious"

We reported recently that a key "Fast and Furious" whistleblower, John Dodson had called on Fortune Magazine to retract a story on the scandal that the Department of Justice Inspector General's report showed to be full of inaccuracies.

Now, Agent Dodson has taken the step of suing Time, Inc, the owner of Fortune, for libel.

The suit claims that the article is "fictitious in the sense that it contains facts that Defendant knew to be false prior to publication."

"[T]he Plaintiff has been libeled nationally and internationally by Defendant, injuring his reputation," the lawsuit states. "The falsities in the article subject the Plaintiff to hatred, ridicule and contempt by readers of the Fortune, its online article, and other persons. The defamatory statements are serious criminal imputations, unfavorable in the eyes of the Plaintiff's fellow United States citizens, including the citizens of South Carolina where he lives."

The Fortune article, written by former Bill Clinton campaign worker Katherine Eban and published right before a vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress in the matter, stated that no guns were intentionally allowed to "walk" to Mexican drug cartels. Eban also claimed that Dodson was only motivated to blow the whistle because of a dispute with another agent. The inspector general's report shows both these claims to be incorrect. Additionally, the information uncovered by the House Oversight Committee also shows that Eban's accusations and conclusions are not supported by the facts.

Despite all this, Eban and Fortune have so far refused to admit the story is inaccurate, nor has the article been retracted. Time, Inc, has not made any public statement so far regarding the suit.

I took a closer look at what you cite, and find it de minimis. Hurricane Sandy arguably may explain one of two days of non-coverage, but essentially the coverage has been far, far less than this matter deserves, and far, far less probing than this matter deserves.

I took a closer look at what you cite, and find it de minimis. Hurricane Sandy arguably may explain one of two days of non-coverage, but essentially the coverage has been far, far less than this matter deserves, and far, far less probing than this matter deserves.

These shows air once a week. One day of non-coverage is a week for them.

GM gave a list of Sunday morning talk shows. They air once a week. Your complaint about about my sources was that "Hurricane Sandy arguably may explain one of two days of non-coverage." One day of coverage for those shows is the entire week. And, having the Sunday show be about the hurricane that is making landfall on MONDAY doesn't mean they dropped the ball.

As for this, "essentially the coverage has been far, far less than this matter deserves, and far, far less probing than this matter deserves," as you well know I agree with you there.

A splattering of wimpy comments from the links of coverage in our AWOL 'watchdog' mainstream press: Creating confusion. Clumsy. Transparent. An utterly contrived story. Mentions on a blog but never a series of relentless followup questions on the Sunday shows in question with their key guests. Please point out if I missed that. One Stephanopolous blog entry ends with the quote Biden saying Romney is politicizing the tragedy and the other with the comment that it was Mitt's worst moment. Why would a news show make a follow up on points expressed so clearly and objectively?

I wonder what these agenda driven losers would have said about Watergate, had it been Obama instead of Nixon.

Maybe for opinion, but the viewer should not need to go to right wing media to get basic facts on core issues of the day. But we do.

If the excuse is the hurricane, lol, then which storm continues to keep them off of Fast and Furious?

It was NOT our military leaders IMHO telling our forces to stand down and let the assassinations and destruction go forward. It was our civilian leadership and we have much easier way to change them out than impeachment.

“They’re just sowing more confusion about this rather than resolving the issue, which is creating more of an issue,” Gregory concluded. - And then he didn't make it more of an issue. Maybe he is planning a hard hitting, national, prime time inquiry into all the contradictions, misstatements, deceptions and the security failures themselves in Benghazi prior to the election - when they are done with their regional weather forecast. I will stay tuned.

To this quote: "essentially the coverage has been far, far less than this matter deserves, and far, far less probing than this matter deserves," Bigdog wrote: "as you well know I agree with you there."

Are you suggesting that potential damage, loss of life, etc. is not worthy of news, Doug? Are you suggesting that potential ramifications of Sandy shouldn't be talked about? Especially on the east coast, which is where the news headquarters tend to be located?

And, I think I am firmly on record about OFF. That does not mean the criticism of the news shows of YESTERDAY was merited.

I took a closer look at what you cite, and find it de minimis. Hurricane Sandy arguably may explain one of two days of non-coverage, but essentially the coverage has been far, far less than this matter deserves, and far, far less probing than this matter deserves.

These shows air once a week. One day of non-coverage is a week for them.

One day of non-coverage to go along with the rest of the days of non-coverage? Why do these professional journalists miss out on these big stories? Watergate didn't have a body count.

I took a closer look at what you cite, and find it de minimis. Hurricane Sandy arguably may explain one of two days of non-coverage, but essentially the coverage has been far, far less than this matter deserves, and far, far less probing than this matter deserves.

These shows air once a week. One day of non-coverage is a week for them.

One day of non-coverage to go along with the rest of the days of non-coverage? Why do these professional journalists miss out on these big stories? Watergate didn't have a body count.

I took a closer look at what you cite, and find it de minimis. Hurricane Sandy arguably may explain one of two days of non-coverage, but essentially the coverage has been far, far less than this matter deserves, and far, far less probing than this matter deserves.

These shows air once a week. One day of non-coverage is a week for them.

One day of non-coverage to go along with the rest of the days of non-coverage? Why do these professional journalists miss out on these big stories? Watergate didn't have a body count.

I'm not getting a clear read on where you're going with this. What I'm getting is that you are quibbling with me because the particular shows in question are weekly shows and were aired with H-Sandy approaching that my criticism of the show was unfounded even though the same folks and same pravda networks have a shameful record with regard to Benghazi-gate in particular and Obama in general-- do I have this right?

Guilty. The nervous laugh is that every week they have a reason, not at the Act of God destruction sure to come. I have the same compassion as your average liberal or journalist. When will they get to asking the tough questions of the right people and demand an answer? Never. Not before, during or after the storm, or they can easily prove me wrong. If the only story is the storm, cancel the show and bring in the weather people and emergency broadcasters. That is what they are doing tonight. Is that what happened Sunday am? I don't think so.

"Are you suggesting that potential damage, loss of life, etc. is not worthy of news, Doug?" No. And there wasn't any Sunday morning, but a real need to tell people to take cover. "Are you suggesting that potential ramifications of Sandy shouldn't be talked about?" No. Did I say that? "Especially on the east coast, which is where the news headquarters tend to be located?" Interesting point, they should call it the meet the east coast press. How about asking the rest of the questions from a Calif studio: WHO TOLD OUR SECURITY FORCES TO STAND DOWN AND LET OUR DIPLOMATS BE MURDERED? Was the drone armed? Who watched in real time in the situation room? Where was the President? Who told Susan Rice the lie to spread on 5 Sunday shows? Why? - No time for any of that.

"And, I think I am firmly on record about OFF." - Noted. And likewise for the agreement on this issue. )None of my anger is aimed at anyone here! (Big, friendly smile icon)

"That does not mean the criticism of the news shows of YESTERDAY was merited." I watched the end of Fox News Sunday and the beginning of clicking between Meet the Press and This Week, was interrupted by news of a death in the family and left the house. I am no expert on what they did or did not cover yesterday other than to infer from all sides in the conversation that the storm coming was the reason for no real follow up on a Benghazi story that is huge and that we all agree is not getting the coverage or aggressive followup that it deserves.

The storm story is now huge and publicizing its magnitude and potential for damage before it hit was fully warranted.

It didn't stop Bill Clinton from telling a Connecticut crowd Sunday night: "We're coming down to the 11th hour. We're facing a violent storm," Clinton said. He waited a beat, then added, "It's nothing compared to the storm we'll face if you don't make the right decision in this election." Was that a joke or serious? I don't know.

Freeway intersection I-29 and I-680 June 10 2011, US Army Corps of Engineers photo

Was this Sunday morning's storm coverage so urgent and thorough that they skipped their commercials? - No. They just skipped doing their job.

----

Note: Drudge who is not liberal or east coast based goes hog wild on big storms too. http://drudgereport.com/ Disasters make great news stories. Huge headline as I post this, "NYC Goes Dark". Below storm coverage he continues coverage of the rest, including: CLINTON: Sandy 'nothing compared to the storm we'll face' if R elected... There will be a 'Secretary of Business' in 2nd Term... Father of Slain SEAL to president: 'Better to Die a Hero Than Live a Coward'...

No, you're just complaining about the lack of something, and then somehow not noticing that there isn't a vacuum on these shows. Three of the four shows that you posted about spent a significant amount of time on Hurricane Sandy. Oh, and by the way, Face the Nation's website has McCain/Libya as the top story RIGHT NOW. But don't let that stop your made up complaints.

"This is not to say that Fox News is alone in covering the story. But it is alone in treating it like it's a big deal. Of the five Sunday news shows, only "Fox News Sunday" treated this as a major story. On the other four, the issue came up only when Republicans mentioned it. Tellingly, on NBC's "Meet the Press," host David Gregory shushed a guest when she tried to bring up the subject, saying, "Let's get to Libya a little bit later."

Gregory never did get back to Benghazi. But he saved plenty of time to dive deep into the question of what Indiana U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock's comments on abortion and rape mean for the Romney campaign. Typically, Gregory's instincts about the news routinely line up with Democratic talking points, in this case Obama's ridiculous "war on women" rhetoric.

I am willing to believe that journalists like Gregory are sincere in their desire to play it straight. But among those who don't share his instincts, it's hard to distinguish between conspiracy and groupthink. Indeed, it's hard to think why one should even bother trying to make that distinction at all."

As I review our posts, I'm not seeing anything that reads to me as saying that H-Sandy should not have received big coverage. What I'm seeing is that we don't see that such coverage needed to exclude coverage of the extraordinary story of Benghazi yet again.

Media cooperating with Benghazi cover-up?posted at 1:31 pm on October 30, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

There has been a curious lack of curiosity among the media about the chain of events that left an American consulate largely undefended in a terrorist attack, resulting in the death of four Americans, despite a number of military resources at hand. Does this equate to a cover-up by the national media, or at least cooperation on their part with the Obama administration to avoid answering questions about it?

Deborah Saunders, a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, finds the lack of interest in this story very, er, interesting. She argues that this isn’t a total media blackout by any means, but implies that the aversion to this story has a lot to do with the party affiliation of the President:

Some readers tell me that they see The Chronicle’s failure to run a rash of front-page stories as proof of bias. They have a point, but they fail to appreciate the local emphasis in today’s front-page placement, especially during a presidential election and World Series, which the Giants, incidentally, won 4-zip.

Most important is the resources issue. Most dailies don’t have foreign bureaus or reporters with the sources needed to break this type of story. “I don’t think there’s a bias issue, but we do have to rely on our primary news services,” Chronicle Editor Ward H. Bushee told me.

That doesn’t let the media off the hook. Saunders notes some very troubling information that has come to light in the last few days — through some good work at Fox News, among others — but which haven’t prompted much coverage or follow-up elsewhere. And if this had happened in a Republican administration, Saunders argues, we’d be seeing a much different response from the media:

On Friday, correspondent Jennifer Griffin reported that sources told her that a CIA team, including Tyrone Woods who also died in Benghazi, had requested military backup during the attack but was told to “stand down.” The CIA dismissed the story as “inaccurate.”

A drone was deployed over Benghazi during an attack that lasted about seven hours. Yet, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters that he hadn’t known enough about what was happening in real time to authorize a military rescue.

The Chronicle’s most recent story on Benghazi ran on Oct. 25. It reported that on Sept. 11, the State Department e-mailed the White House that Ansar al-Shariah had claimed responsibility for the attack. That would be shortly after 6 p.m. Eastern time. What did Obama know that night, when did he know it and what did he do about it? Ditto Langley and the Pentagon.

Now ask yourself this: If George W. Bush were president, and the press didn’t know what he did on the evening of the Benghazi attack, do you think there would be the same focus in the media? I think we know the answer.

Michael Ramirez offers his Pulitzer Prize-winning perspective at Investors Business Daily on the media response:

About Standing Up for HeroesABC News is launching an ongoing series of reports “Standing Up for Heroes“ on Friday, November 11. Through this ongoing series of reports Bob Woodruff and Martha Raddatz will shine a light on critical issues facing veterans and their families while showcasing the ways Americans can come together to help those who have served and sacrificed.

Howabout covering Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty and their final fight?

Libya: As the father of a former Navy SEAL slain at Benghazi wonders why our secretary of state lied to him, we wonder why our CIA director abetted a lie that contradicted counterterrorism officials and the FBI.

During the 2004 presidential campaign, a media eager to deny George W. Bush a second term made Cindy Sheehan, who lost a son in Iraq, a national heroine and reported virtually her every word and move.

But nobody in a mainstream media eager to see President Obama get a second term is bringing the Benghazi debate to the White House doorstep. On all the Sunday talk shows, when Benghazi was brought up, the moderator quickly changed subjects.

On CNN's "State of the Union," Candy Crowley, who came to the aid of President Obama on Benghazi during the second presidential debate, sloughed off attempts by two GOP officials to broach Benghazi. When Newt Gingrich raised Benghazi on ABC's "This Week," host George Stephanopoulos quickly changed topics. NBC's David Gregory cut off GOP panelist Carly Fiorina when she brought up Benghazi, promising to "get to that a little later." Of course, he never did.

Nor is Gregory or the others likely to pursue an interview with Charles Woods, father of Ty Woods, one of the SEALs killed in Benghazi.

A few conservative outlets have talked to him, notably Fox News, and he's had much to say about how and why his son was abandoned by the government he served.

Woods is especially angry "that apparently the White House situation room was watching our people die in real time, as this was happening."

If Cindy Sheehan had made such a comment, it would have led every evening newscast.

Nor is Woods happy with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "Her countenance was not good, and she made this statement to me .. . she said we will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted," he told radio host Glenn Beck. Woods said he "could tell that she was not telling me the truth."

Indeed, she and the president had to know Benghazi was not caused by a video and knew in real-time there was no spontaneous mob, but rather an organized terrorist attack by the al-Qaida-linked Ansar al-Sharia.

Two days after the deadly Libya terror attack, representatives of the FBI and National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) gave Capitol Hill briefings in which they said just that — that the evidence supported an al-Qaida or al-Qaida-affiliated attack.

FBI and NCTC also briefed that there were several al-Qaida training camps just outside Benghazi where the attack occurred and resulted in the deaths of four Americans. The area was described as a hotbed for the militant Ansar al-Sharia as well as al-Qaida in North Africa.

So why did CIA Director David Petraeus tell lawmakers the opposite a day after, that the attack was more consistent with a flash mob, where militants showed up spontaneously with rocket-propelled grenades?

Petraeus downplayed to lawmakers the skill needed to fire mortars, which every spontaneous demonstrator knows how to do.

Petraeus, who served honorably as commander in Iraq and Afghanistan, had to have known otherwise.

"I wish that the leadership in the White House had the same level of moral courage and heroism that my son displayed," Woods said.

So do we. And we wish the media would give him as much sympathy and air time as they gave Cindy Sheehan.

Meet the Press etc should have done their job, filmed a show, brought in key guests, asked tough questions - on key issues. It is 2 shows to a landmark election and they haven't asked much yet. On the eastern seaboard they should have cut away as they did with every other show for extreme weather warnings. People can catch up with the clips, news, video and transcripts when they have more time.

Strange to learn it wasn't the storm but the inconvenient comment of the Indiana candidate that superseded coverage of the Benghazi security scandal.

Like Candy Crowley says, we can get to that later. Much later.

Bad storms coverage has good ratings. Right wing rape abortion comments have the potential to hurt Mitt Romney. We have time for that.

Leno: DADT is back — it’s “Obama’s new policy for questions on Libya”posted at 2:41 pm on October 31, 2012 by Erika JohnsenWhile Jay Leno has no trouble finding occasion to poke fun at Republicans, last night he made a joke at President Obama’s expense last that contained an all-too-accurate observation:

Well, ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is back — not for gays in the military, it’s President Obama’s new policy for questions about Libya. Don’t ask, don’t tell! Well, that’s the big story, the Republicans are accusing the White House of successfully engineering a massive coverup on the Libyan attack, but on the plus side, it’s the first time Republicans are giving credit to Obama for doing anything successfully.We’re more than seven weeks out from the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, but we’re still left trying to put together an accurate picture of what actually happened and the White House is still deflecting questions. As the Weekly Standard wonders, we have heard from various government officials, but that has left us with still more questions about Obama’s commanding-in-chief:

So here’s where we are: Petraeus has made clear the CIA wasn’t responsible for the decision not to act. Panetta has tried to take the responsibility himself—and the White House has seemed to encourage this interpretation of events. But Panetta’s position is untenable: The Defense Department doesn’t get to unilaterally decide whether it’s too risky or not to try to rescue CIA operators, or to violate another country’s air space. In any case, it’s inconceivable Panetta didn’t raise the question of what to do when he met with the national security adviser and the president at 5 p.m. on the evening of September 11 for an hour. And it’s beyond inconceivable he didn’t then stay in touch with the White House after he returned to the Pentagon.

So the question remains: What did President Obama do that evening (apart from spending an hour on the phone with Prime Minister Netanyahu)? What did he know, and what did he decide, and what was the basis for his decisions?Of course, when I say that “we” are still left with questions, I only mean the people who are bothering to be interested in this travesty of a security failure — because there seem to be a lot of people within a certain profession who are actively disinterested, as Charles Krauthammer argued last night: “You could argue that it takes Libya off the front pages, but then again, it wasn’t on the front pages in the first place. It is the mainstream media, who spent hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of articles on the supposed outing of a CIA agent in the Bush administration, in which she was safely in Washington and never in danger, has an epidemic of incuriosity about the murder of an ambassador.”

The ride on the Obama bus gets bumpier as more bodies are thrown under it.

The latest to go thumpity thump are journalists who trumpeted the administration's excuse that faulty intelligence is why the president said for so long the attack on our consulate in Benghazi was a "spontaneous" protest over a Youtube video.

The journalists went under the bus because the Foreign Service and career intelligence officers the administration tried to scapegoat refused to go there. They've leaked emails that reveal the White House was informed while it was still going on that the attack was the work of terrorists affiliated with al-Qaida.

To put this in the context of the Mother of All Scandals, these emails are the equivalent of a transcript of what was on the 181/2 minutes of the secret White House tapes President Nixon's secretary erased.

"What did the president know, and when did he know it?" Sen. Howard Baker, R-Tenn, asked during the Watergate hearings. The answer in the leaked emails is that the president knew everything, all along.

They were sent by the Regional Security Officer in Libya to the State Department in Washington, the White House Situation Room, the Pentagon, the FBI and thedirector of National Intelligence.

The first said the consulate was being attacked by "about 20" armed men.

The third, sent two hours later, reported that Ansar al Sharia, an Islamist militia, was claiming credit for the attack.

A fourth, sent at 11:57 p.m. EDT, described a mortar attack on the consulate annex, where the Americans were killed.

About 300 watch officers at the NSC, State, Defense, the FBI and other agencies would have read these emails as soon as they were received, and informed their superiors right away. This was a crisis. Men armed with mortars, machineguns and rocket-propelled grenades were attacking a U.S. consulate. The ambassador was missing. The secretary of state, the DNI and the president would have been briefed within hours.

When the "three a.m. phone call" came (at 6:07 p.m. EDT), the president ignored it. The day after learning Ambassador Stevens had been murdered and sensitive intelligence documents were missing, he jetted off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas.

And for nearly two weeks afterward, Mr. Obama and his senior aides blamed the attack on the Youtube video -- even though they knew that wasn't true.

His interview with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes, taped the day after the attack, indicates that Mr. Obama has been lying from the get-go.

"My suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in [the attack on the consulate] who were looking to target Americans from the start," the president told Mr. Kroft.

The fact that CBS cut this from the broadcast -- airing instead Mr. Obama's attack on Mitt Romney for criticizing his Middle East policy -- indicates why the White House remains confident the "mainstream" media will continue to downplay the scandal.

This cover-up, like that in Watergate, goes right to the top. What's being covered up is much worse than a "third rate burglary." Why was security so lax? Why were the ambassador's pleas for more turned down? Why did the president lie? Americans have a right to know. Few in the media have tried to find out.

Appeals to their integrity are unlikely to get "mainstream" journalists to do their jobs, since they have so little of it. Self preservation may. The leaked emails expose journalists who touted the administration's story as gullible chumps, corrupt shills, or both.

Spooks and diplomats are angry at the attempt to make them scapegoats; furious that the president didn't lift a finger to help their comrades in the consulate during the seven-hour siege. More leaks may be on the way. If they fail to follow up, journalists could lose more credibility than the president. They haven't much credibility left to lose.

Jack Kelly is a columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio.

As I review our posts, I'm not seeing anything that reads to me as saying that H-Sandy should not have received big coverage. What I'm seeing is that we don't see that such coverage needed to exclude coverage of the extraordinary story of Benghazi yet again.

The post that began this deluge took four programs to task about their lack of coverage of a particular story on a specific day. That specific day was the day before a hurricane hit the east coast, in the most densely populated area of the country (I think), a week before an election, hitting states such as PA and VA which are swing states that will determine the outcome of the election.

Three of the four programs that were berated, critisized or whatever spent much of their airtime to talk about that hurricane. Since I have posted about the hurricane coverage on the SUnday morning programs, you have said "What GM reports is as shameful as it is predictable." I take that to mean that hurricane coverage is not worthy of air time, when a story that you, GM and Doug somehow think should have been aired on that exact day. I agree that Benghazi is an undercovered story, but that won't stop the storm front that is GM once he has made up his mind about something. However, critisizing those programs on the day before landfall, for airing hurricane coverage strikes me as stupid, cold, and over the top. It also detracts from the message that you three and other conservatives want to support about the liberal media bias. You don't have to convince each other, you have to change the minds of those who don't beleive you. When hurricane coverage is your starting point, you lose the likelihood of persuasion, I would think. I say that, because you've lost me. NOW the criticism has shifted to only one of the orginal programs. So now the complaint seems to be that one of four didn't actually talk about the hurricane. OK, but that sure is different than the original position. And you accuse me of quibbling. One of four. That is a quibble.

No matter what I say, none of you will change your mind. Doug suggests that these programs might have cut away, so that there are essentially two different shows shown. Actually, I have friends and family on the east coast. I'd like to see what's going on out there. I care about how the storm impacted the election, so I'd like to know what is going on in Pennsylvania and Virginia. (Also, I'm not sure that it is strange that Mourdock's comments would get airplay. First, this comment came at the end of an election cycle that has included Todd Akin making national news. Second, Romney did just film a commercial for Mourdock. Third, I think that abortion remains an important election story, as most Americans have strong views on it. Fourth, there has been a major point about swing voter, and the number of which are women. Fifth, well, nevermind... How could we think to talk about domestic electoral issues before an election.)

You all see the spector of the liberal media. I see, at least for a day, the media covering the most important national story.

So, attack away. Me? Reporters? Whomever. Overwhelm the forum with facts about one of four shows. That totally proves that you are right, no matter what. Because you will ALWAYS be right. No matter what.

Bigdog, These are good points, very well expressed. The storm was huge, deadly and affected people beyond what was in its path. I regret a couple of things, that I piled on with points already made by others, and that my words trivialized the importance of broadcasting the deadly danger impending.

The Mourdock point is interesting. It is something they would also cover if not interrupted by the storm, but not ahead of or instead of Benghazi IMO. What bill or constitutional amendment that might pass in the Senate would ban abortion for pregnancies resulting from rape? There are none.

Rape abortions make up about .05% of all abortions. The non-existent controversy makes a useful diversion from focusing on convenience abortions that comprise more than 98% of abortions, as I see it.

Regarding Benghazi, the Sunday shows were the conduit for the central lie the administration put forward. I clicked and watched Ambassador Susan Rice go on four of those shows with the exact same well rehearsed story. She was sent there by the White House to tell the nation a false characterization of what happened in a very important international event. It has been 7 weeks since the tragedy. What exactly she was covering up we still don't know.

Assuming professionalism and conscience, these shows would feel a need to get the false story corrected, find and air the truth the best they can and get it done in the same format, national broadcast not in a blog, prior to the election.

My complaint is aimed at far more than the decisions made that one day. The point of that day is that if not that day as the story was exploding, then when? It isn't going to happen. They broadcast a falsehood and they leave it out there for weeks or forever uncorrected.

If the administration goes down partly because of this story it is because people moved on to get their news from other sources than what used to be the main networks and the main newspapers.

I think that we have a different view of what makes something newsworthy. For example, while I take your point on the importance of the rape/abortion, I think you "misunderestimate" its impact. First, rape is horrific (I know you know this; not a jab at you in any way). As such, and given that it is many women's worst nightmare, or top 3 anyway, the basis of the question has political merit I think you don't recognize. Especially since many of the undecideds are women. Second, one's view on abortion is often indicative of religious views. We can discuss whether ot not one should base a vote on religion, but we both know that people do. JFK being Catholic, Romney--albeit to a lesser extent-- and his Mormon faith, and Obama's Christian/Muslim/has he choosen a church yet are things that are focused on very often, for good or ill. Mourdock's (or Akin's) misstatements about rape/abortion ARE indicative of their faith. And, as such, will be discussed. And if this isn't true, why did Mitt Romney call Todd Akin and ask him to step aside from the election???

Also think that there are MANY stories that are under-reported. In that regard, Benghazi is not unique. And here, I don't just mean the ones you mean, or the necessarily political, in a liberal/conversative view. There has been little to no coverage about the impact Sandy had in the Caribbean. There is very little discussion, it seems to me, about the conflict between Japan and China about Senkaku Islands. Etc. But you (conservative plural) don't complain about those under reported stories. Why not? Aren't they important? So, I see un(der) reported stories not necessarily as a liberal/conservative issue, but as a sad by product of the news that occurs by nature of being news. There are only so many news sources, with a finite airtime or pages to report the news. Other resources are also lacking (any guesses about the number of news desks in Africa?).

Finally, no matter what YOU were talking about, if you look carefully... I was talking about a day. If you see liberal taint everywhere, I think you lose lots of people. As I said, I know you lost me.

Funny that you should mention this because on the round table for the final segment of Bret Baier's Special Report today they specifically mentioned that the story finally seems to be getting some traction with some of the Pravdas